Néstor Gorojovsky ([email protected]) wrote on 2009-09-20 at 19:10:43 in about Re: [Marxism] "WW2": interimperialist war to redivide the world: > > > I think that, in a general perspective, both Lüko and DWalters are right. > > Because whoever won the dispute over the redistribution would herald > the war against the Soviet Union. Both things were the same thing.
For Hitler it was a question of phases. Besides his central programmatic slogan "Germany must be world power, or it will not be", he had explained in great lengths in discussing the war 1914-18 that Germany has only two options to wage war: "against England with Russia", or "with Russia against England". He vacillated till the last moment which war he would wage and win first to then take up the second one. He finally found it very convenient to struck a deal with Stalin, so that the USSR would secure his back, deliver raw materials and provide a trade route with the Far East, while Hitler could attack in the West. Well, in the end he could not avoid the geographical position of Germany in the middle of Europe, and that the USA could not tolerate the rise of a competitor for world domination, and for the unrestricted access to the British Empire for the US industry. Cheers, Lüko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
